INTRODUCTION: Sentinel lymph node biopsy is emerging as the new standard for axillary staging in breast cancer. Intra-operative assessment of the sentinel lymph nodes allows immediate completion of axillary dissection during the same anaesthetic. This project was a quality assurance practice to establish feasibility, time-to-report, as well as accuracy of performing intra-operative assessment of sentinel lymph nodes using touch imprint cytology in our centre. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective audit included 146 sentinel lymph nodes from 74 consecutive patients with invasive breast cancer. All patients underwent axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy using combined blue dye and radiocolloid technique. Results of intra-operative touch imprint cytology using haematoxylin and eosin staining were compared with the definitive histopathology results. RESULTS: Mean time to report touch imprint cytology was 25.7 +/- 6.4 min (range, 15-40 min). Histopathology demonstrated metastasis in 25 sentinel nodes from 17 (23%) patients. Intra-operative touch imprint cytology detected 15 nodes in 11 patients, giving a sensitivity of 60% (nodes) and 66.7% (patients) and specificity of 99.2% (nodes) and 98.2% (patients) based on the number of nodes and patients involved, respectively. Touch imprint cytology failed to show metastatic involvement in 10 nodes from 6 patients; of these, five nodes had micrometastasis (< 2 mm) and the other five had macrometastasis. One touch imprint cytology positive node contained isolated tumour cells only. Using intra-operative touch imprint cytology made a change in treatment of 11(14.9%) patients, and spared second axillary procedure in 7 (9.4%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Intra-operative sentinel lymph node assessment using touch imprint cytology is feasible within a busy NHS practice. We now offer touch imprint cytology to patients following appropriate counselling.
INTRODUCTION: Sentinel lymph node biopsy is emerging as the new standard for axillary staging in breast cancer. Intra-operative assessment of the sentinel lymph nodes allows immediate completion of axillary dissection during the same anaesthetic. This project was a quality assurance practice to establish feasibility, time-to-report, as well as accuracy of performing intra-operative assessment of sentinel lymph nodes using touch imprint cytology in our centre. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective audit included 146 sentinel lymph nodes from 74 consecutive patients with invasive breast cancer. All patients underwent axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy using combined blue dye and radiocolloid technique. Results of intra-operative touch imprint cytology using haematoxylin and eosin staining were compared with the definitive histopathology results. RESULTS: Mean time to report touch imprint cytology was 25.7 +/- 6.4 min (range, 15-40 min). Histopathology demonstrated metastasis in 25 sentinel nodes from 17 (23%) patients. Intra-operative touch imprint cytology detected 15 nodes in 11 patients, giving a sensitivity of 60% (nodes) and 66.7% (patients) and specificity of 99.2% (nodes) and 98.2% (patients) based on the number of nodes and patients involved, respectively. Touch imprint cytology failed to show metastatic involvement in 10 nodes from 6 patients; of these, five nodes had micrometastasis (< 2 mm) and the other five had macrometastasis. One touch imprint cytology positive node contained isolated tumour cells only. Using intra-operative touch imprint cytology made a change in treatment of 11(14.9%) patients, and spared second axillary procedure in 7 (9.4%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Intra-operative sentinel lymph node assessment using touch imprint cytology is feasible within a busy NHS practice. We now offer touch imprint cytology to patients following appropriate counselling.
Authors: Gary H Lyman; Armando E Giuliano; Mark R Somerfield; Al B Benson; Diane C Bodurka; Harold J Burstein; Alistair J Cochran; Hiram S Cody; Stephen B Edge; Sharon Galper; James A Hayman; Theodore Y Kim; Cheryl L Perkins; Donald A Podoloff; Visa Haran Sivasubramaniam; Roderick R Turner; Richard Wahl; Donald L Weaver; Antonio C Wolff; Eric P Winer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-09-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Matthew S Pugliese; Jennifer R Kohr; Kimberly H Allison; Nan Ping Wang; Ronald J Tickman; J David Beatty Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Charles Cox; Barbara Centeno; Dan Dickson; John Clark; Santo Nicosia; Elisabeth Dupont; Harvey Greenberg; Nicholas Stowell; Laura White; Jayesh Patel; Ben Furman; Alan Cantor; Ardeshir Hakam; Nazeel Ahmad; Nils Diaz; Jeff King Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-02-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Thomas B Julian; Peter Blumencranz; Kenneth Deck; Pat Whitworth; Donald A Berry; Scott M Berry; Anne Rosenberg; Anees B Chagpar; Douglas Reintgen; Peter Beitsch; Rache Simmons; Sukamal Saha; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Armando Giuliano Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-07-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Noelia Perez; Sergi Vidal-Sicart; Gabriel Zanon; Martin Velasco; Gorane Santamaria; Antonio Palacin; Elias Campo; Antonio Cardesa; Pedro L Fernandez Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2005-03-16 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: P L Fitzgibbons; D L Page; D Weaver; A D Thor; D C Allred; G M Clark; S G Ruby; F O'Malley; J F Simpson; J L Connolly; D F Hayes; S B Edge; A Lichter; S J Schnitt Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: J J Albertini; G H Lyman; C Cox; T Yeatman; L Balducci; N Ku; S Shivers; C Berman; K Wells; D Rapaport; A Shons; J Horton; H Greenberg; S Nicosia; R Clark; A Cantor; D S Reintgen Journal: JAMA Date: 1996-12-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Umberto Veronesi; Giovanni Paganelli; Giuseppe Viale; Alberto Luini; Stefano Zurrida; Viviana Galimberti; Mattia Intra; Paolo Veronesi; Chris Robertson; Patrick Maisonneuve; Giuseppe Renne; Concetta De Cicco; Francesca De Lucia; Roberto Gennari Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-08-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marissa Howard-McNatt; Kim R Geisinger; John H Stewart; Perry Shen; Edward A Levine Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-08-31 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Melissa M Sanders; Shamaela Waheed; Sanjay Joshi; Caroline Pogson; Stephen R Ebbs Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2010-12-10 Impact factor: 1.891